memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Universal translator
Theory of operation The universal translator works by peforming several functions. One function is to intercept the nerve signals of spoken language that is heard by the person using it and blocks the brain from registering them. It also scans brain wave energy received not from the user but from those being translated, created while composing a sentence. The universal translator absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brain wave energy and then excretes into the mind of its user a telephatic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them, leading to instant language translation. So what the user's ears hear and what their brain thinks it heard are two different things. The speech patterns they actually hear decode the brain wave matrix which has been fed into their mind by the universal translator. Thus the universal translator effectively allows someone to read the minds of people who are talking to them, and doesn't actually translate sounds per se. The final function of the universal translator is to actually serve as a brain wave modification device. It alters brain waves in the user's visual recognition region of the brain so that they see the people being translated forming words of the user's native language with their mouths. Otherwise the user would see a mismatch between the lip movements others make and the translated words. :Do you have any references for this? This sounds rather imaginary (even for Star Trek). --K 04:03, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::It sounds quite imaginary to me, but it would seem to be the only way such a device could work. In order to work on "first contact" peoples, it would have to actually translate the user's speech from within the brain before it gets to the tongue, or else it would be conspicuous. It's the most unbelievable "Treknology", but the most necessary for the storylines. Mal7798 04:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC) :::One flaw. Hoshi isn't telepathic. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC) ::I don't see that contradicting. The translator would have to read brain waves in some way to work, especially in first contacts. It would have to translate speech within the speaker's mind, both when listening to the other's speech and to one's own speech. Either that, or mismatching lips would not be as conspicuous as it would seem. It would almost have to send some sort of telepathic message to non-telepaths.Mal7798 07:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC) ::::This actually sounds more like a Babelfish from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy... -- Kooky 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC) ::::: I red somewhere that the device is integrated into the communicator pin. Accourding to me this is impossible, because in many episodes the pins are stolen, broken or lost and everybody speaks english. Even in Voyager! It must me something you install on/into your body. Universal Translator failure in DS9 I remember one episode of DS9, where the UT failed as well but I can't remember the name of it. It would be nice to add the name of this episode to the main entry for UT as well. July 6, 2004 :Answer :That episode was , and it involved the Skreea. July 6, 2004 When the UT doesn't seem to work This is a quite fundamental Star Trek question, but I was hoping to have it answered in the UT article. It is not that seldom for other languages to be spoken, that the Universal Translator should be able to translate. For example, Piccard speaking Klingon and the UT NOT translating, is comprehensible, since he is NOT Klingon. But when the Klingons answer him in Klingon, or when they talk to eachother in Klingon, why don't we hear it in English? Any possible explanations? Aleksander Soleim 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC) : Because then the show would be less entertaining. ::This is just a theory, but you'll notice that this usually only happens with races that the Federation see fairly often (Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, etc.) so it would not be unreasonable to expect that in these cases both parties are choosing to forgo the use of the UT to better control their speech instead of depending on a translator. Picard in particular seems fluent in the Klingon tongue. That, or the translator is smart enough to know when the person does not want his speech translated. ::Besides, we're viewing Star Trek through an imaginary storytelling window, and the writers have the freedom to represent language how they please, either by dubbing the voice for us or letting the audience hear the language and translate with subtitles. The Xindi Council scenes from ENT are perfect examples of both methods. 14:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Universal Translator in Enterprise In an episode (Dawn something?) where Trip gets stuck on the dark side of a moon with an alien and he has to work together, the alien and he get rescued. Trip asks the doctor in sickbay "can he understand me?". The Doctor replies, "He should, the Universal Translator is online". They then proceed to a normalish conversation. Yet this conflicts with This version of the UT could be used for ship-to-ship communications only, and face-to-face communication or off-world missions required the use of a skilled linguist regarding the early history. Can someone update to include this?-- 23:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC) :I think "ship-to-ship communications only" is misleading. I believe the intention should be, that if the Universal Translator of the era was used, the ship had to be involved. It wouldn't make any sense to suggest that the translator could only be hooked into external communications equipment; the computer/program itself doesn't care where the data is coming from. Logically, the Universal Translator, with proper data routing, could be used from anywhere that could contact the ship. Inside the ship, it could obviously be used by linking to it through the ship's intercom system. And, to the point, the very first place to get priority for a special direct link to the Universal Translator almost certainly would be the sickbay where seconds lost in translation can cost lives. The next place would be the board room, where meetings with other cultures would be expected. And soon I would expect it to work via communicators if they could stay in link with the ship. You don't need dozens of translators spread all over when you only need one and dozens of otherwise necessary items can connect to it... --JCoyote 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC) ::There is also an epsiode in which Archer is communicating with a girl on a planet, and the translator temporarily begins to fail. We can assume that it was tied in to the ship's computer. From other episodes though it seems that there is some sort of personal translator each person carries with them.-- :::Additionally, in portable Universal Translators are shown being warn by the various delegates, that were updated by Hoshi. I think this establishes that self-contained portable UTs were in use in 2155, at least in a limited form (only works with pre-input languages perhaps, though no canon to support this statement). -- Kooky 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Universal Translator's Selective Nature The universal translator works perfectly but seems to know (without any sort of empatchic abilities) not to translate certain things. Such as Klingon words. :Writers artistic license. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC) :: Maybe those sneaky Klingons and some others have tricks to scramble Universal Translators when necessary, or when they just feel ornery. In fact, in an environment with competing empires all having such devices, I would expect all of them to have some device capable of this. --JCoyote 18:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC) ::: More likely the device would recognize that our intention was not to say something that was translated... for example, if you were speaking english and you were to drop a french phrase, it is usually implied in our voice that it exists in quotes. ex: my 'raison d'etre' for feeling this way etc... It isn't that far fetched to believe that it can recognize when a comment is spoken not to be translated. This doesn't cover every single instance in Trek, but it is interesting to note that often aliens (Vulcans and Klingons especially) will converse with each other in their own language. This seems to indicate that the device determines speaking intentions.-- :::: Also, its likely that there is a "Censor" mode, since more often than not, language that isn't translated seems to be curses. Additionally, as far as Klingon goes, usually items that are not translated seem to be proper names for things, of course there are a few exceptions as well. -- Kooky 20:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC) :::::There has to be some kind of selectivity for personal names. After all, when Picard talks to some alien, his name comes out JEAN-LUC, not JOHN-LUKE. :p --StarFire209 01:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC) :::::: What about a section for episodes like where people are clearly seen communicating without such a device, when it's not possible that they would be speaking the same language, i.e. plot inconsistencies -- 23:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) :::::::Under this would be the many times that Federation personell are deprived of their combadges yet communicate with "aliens" just fine. A bizarre example of this is the Voyager episode , once on Hannon IV, the crew cannot communicate with the pre-warp people on the planet, yet Janeway and Chakotay can easily communicate with Tuvok (for example). This not only demonstrates the UT's "fickleness" as the above noted, but also gives clear basis that the UT isn't located in the combadge (and can be backed up by many other episodes where different species are communicating without a combadge present.) -- 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC) ::::::::Just some speculation, but Tuvok's a pretty smart guy. I don't doubt that he picked up a little English in his 83 years working alongside Humans (Kes can be explained away, but no explanation for Neelix). We know some Ferengi implant a UT in their ear, some Humans and other species might do the same for combadge-less environments.--Tim Thomason 04:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Background information (or lack thereof) What about some "background information" for this article? I was expecting to find information about how the universal translator serves as a convention used in order to keep the focus on the action, and not on the potential subtitles. That's all I have to say... ^_^--Mathwizard44 17:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC) :It's a wiki. That means that you can add information like that, especially if you can source it somehow. -- Sulfur 18:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC) There. I'd just like to add that my favorite part of Memory Alpha is the background information on many of the articles. ^_^ Keep up the good work.--Mathwizard44 18:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC) I am willing to suspend my disbelief only when the UT is ignored Bear with me, my point might be a little hard to communicate clearly. I think the UT is an absolutely essential plot device, it would be impossible to write Star Trek without it. However, it would be very difficult to write science fiction with a UT that is internally consistent, and it would be even harder to make it plausible. In Star Trek, the UT is both inconsistent and implausible, but that is alright most of the time. Where is the UT located, in the comm badge, or an implant? I don't care. How does it translate everything correctly, considering how ambiguous language is? I don't care. However, I get really annoyed whenever Star Trek draws attention to the UT. I am willing to suspend my disbelief and ignore the UT, so long as the writers ignore it too. Here is a prime example of the writers drawing unnecessary attention to the inconsistencies of the UT: In the episode , the universal translator is working as usual, and allowing Captain Archer to mingle among pre-warp aliens without them realizing he is from another planet and cannot speak their language. Then his UT malfunctions temporarily, and he cannot comprehend or speak the local language. Why did the writers put that in? It brings up all the questions I wanted to ignore, such as: What did his lip movements look like while the UT was working, and what would they have looked like while it malfunctioned? Clearly, if he was successfully impersonating the locals, the UT not only changed the sounds the others heard coming from his mouth but also changed the appearance of his lips to match. The UT creates numerous inconsistencies which cannot be explained gracefully, and the explanations themselves are often completely improbable. Using my previous example: the UT in this episode of Enterprise is clearly a hand held device that Archer carries, and he covertly tweaks this device when it malfunctions. This single device enables him and any other humans in the room to hear English and see English lip movements, while at the same time any aliens in the room will hear alien language and see corresponding alien lip movements. This means that the device is telepathically communicating with the aliens to change their perception of the sounds AND visuals surrounding them, because that was required for successful infiltration. This change in perception is probably telepathic and illusory, because it would be very difficult to change the physical sound waves and photons. The sound waves and photons could only be changed if they were changed into multiple forms - English sound waves and photons for the humans, others for each set of aliens. That is conceivable, you could target one hologram to the left and a different one to the right, but then what about echoes? What if a camera records someone speaking with a UT, and then the video tape is played back without a UT to an audience of multiple species? Can all of the audience members understand the speaker? Or just one species? How does the camera know which lip movements to record, or will the visual be modified, months or years later, between the screen and the eyes of the viewers? If they have UTs that are so skilled at deception (either telepathic or holographic), then how come they can't use those technologies for other purposes? These are all the questions that I start asking myself after just one mention of the UT. The answers are not graceful, they are not clever, they are just kludges. In science fiction, you should focus on a piece of technology if it is cool, clever, or graceful. If it was just a plot device, IGNORE IT LIKE THE PLAGUE! The exception to this is , in which the Ferengis' UTs malfunction because of the nuclear bombs on Earth. That is just hilarious. The writers were clearly poking fun at the awkward and inconsistent nature of UTs.Flouborate 03:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC) : Not sure where you are going with this, is this an essay (and therefore rhetorical questions) or legitimate questions? If it's the former, the this is not . If it's the latter, then they are a bit too speculative for my taste. --Alan 03:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC) :: A) Generally in the combadge, it seems. In the 22nd and 23rd century they had hand-held devices (although it may have been in a communicator as well). The Ferengi, and likely other species, implanted a UT under the skin (in that case, the ear). :: B) The translation more than likely has to do with some sort of brainwave-reading, reverse aphasia device, but that's speculative. Would also explain why people THINK they see them talking alright. :: C) The writers believed that having the futuristic technology malfunction in their early stages created drama (like the minor transporter malfunction in ). :: D) If my speculation about the reverse aphasia is right, then any Akaali would think his lips were moving correctly. They would know they're not when the UT stops working. :: E) I don't think the multiple hologram explanation makes much sense (especially in Enterprise's era), so I'm not sure how they would handle echoes. Since they're sound waves like any other, I presume they'll be translated in whatever way they're translated. :: F) I'm not sure if we've ever seen a recording of people translated with the UT (as opposed to perhaps a known translation algorithm). I know we saw a translated and untranslated version of Weyoun and Damar, but the UT wouldn't have been necessary there. :: G) They probably could, if the recording recorded the appropriate brainwaves... or whatever. :: H) I'd guess more than one, but that's all speculative. :: I) In my opinion, neither will the camera (some kind of UT camera?) "selectively record" lip movements, nor will it be modified for some purpose. The brainwave thing will presumably make people THINK they are seeing the right lip movements. :: J) There's nothing to indicate that UT's aren't used for other purposes. :: Again, the UT has been appropriately ignored tons of times, so we don't actually have the answers to these questions. Like you said, it's best to ignore the plot device, even if our mantra makes it necessary to cover and report every mention and appearance of said device.--Tim Thomason 04:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I would like to thank both of you. This is wrong: I will move this discussion to the forums, because that is clearly where it belongs. I didn't realize the forums existed.[[User:Flouborate|Flouborate] 06:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)] Wait, where am I supposed to idly discuss and wildly speculate about fictional technology? Are there Star Trek forums somewhere? Perhaps someone could post advice on my user talk page, and then I will delete this. Thank you.Flouborate 07:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Universal translators don't translate pets! Why?? Whenever we invent the Universal Translator sometime in the 2020s, there will be so many pet lovers who will want to talk to their pets like humans, someone will HAVE TO make universal translators that will allow us to talk to our pets. Sure, Archer had a pet, but that was before the era of Universal Translators in their reality. Now, to Star Trek: Generations- Kirk had some dog who died nine years before, and he only barked, despite there being a universal translator. Why didn't Roddenberry decide to let UTs translate pets as well? If he did, then how would Star Trek be different? And when UTs that translate everyone and pets arrive in our reality, how would you feel about that? -- 02:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC) :They only translate language. Dogs and cats either don't have language or their language is too weird for the UT - there are actually several known species who can't be translated with the UT. --TribbleFurSuit 03:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC) ::In the episode it was stated that Porthos' brainwave patterns were too simplistic or something similar like that (lower lifeform) for the translator to pick up on it or something to that effect. — Morder 04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) ::: Nothing about brainwave patterns, just: :::* GRISH: I can't lock on to its language. :::* MUK: It's a lower lifeform, you fool. ::: ...right after they ask the dog a question and in barks in response. --Alan 06:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC) ::::Where does 2020 come from? The universal translator will be invented shortly before 2151. SennySix 18:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC) :::::I think the guy is predicting that is when we will do it in the real world. We do tend to get many things long before Trek predicts (though it is debatable that Trek inspired the inventions, and therefore would not have happened that early without Trek). --OuroborosCobra talk 18:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Pets don't have a language, just like if you lived by yourself all your life and nobody taught you a language, you might grunt and have a few sounds that mean 'stick' or 'rock' but that would be it. Off-topic Can I just say on the one hand we have "that's not what talk pages are for", on this very page even, when somebody made comments which aren't about editing the article, and on the other hand, the same contributor says "hmm, talk page isn't broke" when he moved this one from the Reference Desk. Which way do you want it? SennySix 19:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC) : Not at all, preferably, but nonetheless, it does contain a legitimate question responded to with a legitimate answer. --Alan 20:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Not what I asked. Where do you want them? : And not at all was the answer, with regards to the type of question posted in the past discussion. --Alan 21:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC) :: Well, actually, your comment history has 2 other answers, and they contradicted each other. 7ny6 was just asking which of the following was the real story: Talk: ain't broke so let's put it there, or, Talk: pages aren't for this at all, alternative unspecified. The past discussion and this current one aren't any different, so, I can understand why clarification was sought. ::From the Reference Desk: "The Reference Desk serves a similar function as a library's reference desk. If you have a specific question that you want answered by Memory Alpha, then post it below! Please note that, after a specific question has been answered, the thread will be moved to an article talk page, or removed completely." So, it hardly matters where someone asks a question that's not about article content, because if it doesn't get deleted it might eventually wind up on a Talk: page anyway, as it was in this case, even though and others say "that's not what talk pages are for". Still, if "talk page isn't broke", then why have a RefDesk at all? And why give people a hard time for Talk:ing, if it's going to get moved here anyway? If the preference is to not have this stuff on MA, don't archive it in Talk:, just remove it from RefDesk as promised. Anyway: Here's what I did find, regarding where chitchat about where stuff not related to actual article contents actually should go. From : "talk pages are ''not used simply for general discussion or chat; that's what our chat room is for"''. --TribbleFurSuit 21:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC) : Well, now that this discussion has gone terribly off-topic, yes, the very last sentence above was what I was referring to in the first discussion, from ages ago. It was not an implication "that this does not go on the talk pages, it goes on the forums", it was a statement that talk pages aren't for general discussion or chat. Seeing as this most recent post has the very name of the article in the title of the post, the first choice would be the talk page, because the above mentioned archiving process rarely gets done, so why not make it a little easier for everyone to find it the next time they come to this talk page to discuss the same topic. --Alan 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)